Re: To DAD or not to DAD?

Erik

Thanks for posting this to the list, more feedbacks/ideas then during the
WG meeting (where the beach was nearby).

From the emails on the list, it appears to me that DAD really needs to be
improved

-éric (who lost hours to spot why DAD was detecting a duplicate... Cloned
laptops had different MAC addresses but the same DUID...)

On 18/02/15 20:46, "Erik Nordmark" <nordmark@acm.org> wrote:

>
>Hello,
>
>Back in November the efficient-nd design team presented slides
>(http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/91/slides/slides-91-6man-11.pdf)
>and a document was produced on the DAD problems
>(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues/)
>
>The key questions in the design team report was what to do about DAD.
>But we haven't had any discussion on this on the list and I'd like to
>get some feedback from the WG to we can move forward.
>
>The slides offered these options:
>1. Deprecate DAD - it is expensive and duplicates are not common
>2. Only send and receive DAD for manually configured addresses
>3. Improve DAD
>  3a. Better at detecting duplicates (partition-join, etc)
>  3b. Less network and host impact (allow sleep schedule)
>4. Do nothing a. aka go to the beach ;-)
>
>The 3a vs. 3b implicitly refers to the list of issues in
>draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues.
>
>Given that the beach is kind of cold this time of year, we can remove
>the 4th choice from the list.
>More seriously, the WG needs to decide how to move forward with DAD.
>
>Would it be helpful to present draft-yourtchenko-6man-dad-issues in
>Dallas? Or can we have an email discussion without/prior to such a
>presentation?
>
>Regards,
>     Erik
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>ipv6@ietf.org
>Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>--------------------------------------------------------------------